GBA Faces Criticism Over Chief Justice Statement and Constitutional Concerns

The Ghana Bar Association (GBA) is under scrutiny for its characterization of a recent statement regarding the suspension of Chief Justice Kwasi Anin-Yeboah as a “resolution.”

Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has challenged the terminology, arguing it risks politicizing the issue and misleads public perception.

“Calling it a ‘resolution’ was inappropriate,” Kpebu said during an interview on TV3’s KeyPoints. “In our current political climate, such language invites partisan interpretation. The document functions more as an appeal for caution, not a formal resolution.” He criticized the GBA for procedural shortcomings, including insufficient notice to members and the timing of its annual conference, which he claims weakened the statement’s legitimacy.

The debate coincides with broader critiques of Ghana’s constitutional structure, particularly Article 144, which outlines presidential authority to appoint justices in consultation with the Council of State and Parliament. Kpebu described the provision as enabling executive dominance over the judiciary. “Control the presidency, and the judiciary follows,” he said, arguing the system undermines separation of powers by tying judicial appointments and funding to political influence.

Kpebu further criticized the 1992 Constitution for assuming politicians would exercise power with integrity, a premise he called unrealistic. “The framers envisioned leaders as philosopher-kings, but humans are fallible,” he remarked. “Constitutional reforms must prioritize accountability, not idealism.” His comments reflect growing demands to insulate judicial processes from political interference and clarify appointment procedures to safeguard institutional independence.

The GBA’s statement and subsequent backlash highlight enduring tensions within Ghana’s legal framework, where judicial independence remains a contested issue. Analysts note that vague constitutional language, such as Article 144’s “consultation” clause, has long fueled concerns about executive overreach. These debates resurface amid public skepticism over delayed rulings and allegations of judicial corruption, underscoring the urgency of reforms that balance authority with transparency.

Ghana’s judiciary, historically viewed as a pillar of democratic stability, now faces pressure to address structural vulnerabilities. Legal experts emphasize that constitutional clarity is critical to maintaining public trust, particularly as past authoritarian legacies linger in institutional memory. As Kpebu concluded, “Laws must constrain power, not accommodate it.